Whether written statement can be Amended

you can file application for amendment of pleadings any stage of case provided the amendment should be bonafide.

Better Read Order VI Rule 17

PlZ, give me some ciatation.

1.       The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344] has held that “It is to be noted that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC have been substantially amended by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002. Under the proviso no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial.

2.       The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in  Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. vs S.K. Sarwagi And Co. Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. Decided on 14/5/2008 and Judgement can be seen in  https://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp  “ It is settled law that the grant of application for amendment be subject to certain conditions, namely, (i) when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment; (ii) when the amendment would result introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party; (iii) when allowing amendment application defeats the law of limitation. The plaintiff not only failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 but even on merits his claim is liable to be rejected.”

3.       The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Chander Kanta Bansal vs  Rajinder Singh Anand Decided on: 11/03/2008 and Judgement can be seen in  https://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp It is observed by court as follows “ It makes it clear that  after the commencement of trial, no application for  amendment shall be allowed.  However, if it is established that  in spite of "due diligence" the party could not have raised the  matter before the commencement of trial depending on the  circumstances, the court is free to order such application.  The  words "due diligence" has not been defined in the Code.   According to Oxford Dictionary (Edition 2006), the word  "diligence" means careful and persistent application or effort.   "Diligent" means careful and steady in application to one's  work and duties, showing care and effort.  As per Black's Law  Dictionary (Eighth Edition), "diligence" means a continual effort  to accomplish something, care; caution; the attention and care  required from a person in a given situation.  "Due diligence"  means the diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily  exercised by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement  or to discharge an obligation.  According to Words and Phrases  by Drain-Dyspnea (Permanent Edition 13A) "due diligence", in  law, means doing everything reasonable, not everything  possible.  "Due diligence" means reasonable diligence; it means  such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the  conduct of his own affairs. It is clear that unless the party  takes prompt steps, mere action cannot be accepted and file a  petition after the commencement of trial.”

4.       The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in N.Pandey & Anr.  Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors. [2006 (12) SCC 1].  and Judgement can be seen in  https://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp In paragraph 57 of the decision, it was observed as follows :”It is submitted that the date of settlement of issues is the date of commencement of trial.”

5.       The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs.  Manohar Singh & Anr. [2006 (6) SCC 498]. and Judgement can be seen in  https://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp In paragraph 17 of the decision, it was held and observed as follows : “Before we part with this order, we may also  notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC  provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be  allowed when the trial of the suit has already  commenced.

The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in South Konkan Distilleries & Anr.   Vs Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors.[Decided on 09-09-2008]. and Judgement can be seen in  https://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp it was held and observed as follows : “we are of the view that if a suit was filed on the amended claim, it was an admitted position that the said claim was barred by limitation, the question of allowing the amendment of the written statement and    the   counter      claim,   in   the    facts   and circumstances of the case, could not arise at all. Accordingly, the courts below were fully justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement and the counter claim.” 

IN Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs. K.K. Modi  [(2006) 4 SCC 385], wherein the approach to be  taken by the Courts in considering whether to permit amendment fell for consideration and it was  held that the Courts should allow all amendments  that may be necessary for determining the real  question in controversy between the parties,  provided it did not cause injustice or prejudice to  the other side. It was observed that the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and  it is the primary duty of the Court to decide  whether such an amendment is necessary to decide  the real dispute between the parties. Similar  views were also expressed in Andhra Bank vs. ABN  Amro Bank N.V. [(2007) 6 SCC 167].

There was no  bar to the Appellate Court permitting amendment of

pleadings to enable a party to raise a new plea, as  was held by SUPREME Court in

Pandit Ishwardas vs.  State of M.P. [(1979) 4 SCC 163]. In fact, SUPREME  Court

observed that all that was necessary was that  the Appellate Court should

observe the well-known  principles subject to which amendments of pleadings  are

usually granted. Naturally, one of the  circumstances which would be taken into

consideration before an amendment was granted is  the delay in making the

application seeking such  amendment and, if made at the appellate stage, the

reason why it was not sought in the Trial Court.  

SUPREME  Court in Harcharan vs. State of Haryana [(1982) 3  SCC

408], where it was observed that amendment of  pleadings relating to the main

controversy should  not be refused on mere technical grounds

IN REVAJEETU BUILDERS CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT DECIDED IN OCTOBER 2009 THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES WERE QUOTED IN THE MATTER OF AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. (1) Whether the amendment sought is im− perative for proper and effective adjudication of the case? (2) Whether the application for amend− ment is bona fide or mala fide? (3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multi− ple litigation; (5) Whether the proposed amendment con− stitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? and (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.

Mr.Sridharababu,

Thanks a tonne for enlightening us.

Best Regards

Daksh

Mr.Sridharababu,

Thanks a tonne for enlightening us.

Best Regards

Highly Obliged, Sir.

Hope Mr.Modi is happy now

I am also happy & enlightened  

also obliged & humbled